I have just re- read Gaudium et Specs, Vatican Council II and have not found any text which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.
On the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) website it is said:
Salza is wrong again. To give just one example that refutes Salza’s claim, in his book Principles of Catholic Theology,... Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (to which Benedict XVI adheres) contradicts the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864). That the two contradict each other is obvious to any honest person who studies the issue.
That Gaudium et Specs and other Vatican Council II documents would contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation and the Syllabus could be because it is assumed that Vatican Council II says there is salvation outside the Church.
For Pope Benedict XVI and the sedevacantists MHFM Vatican Council II says there is salvation outside the Church since they both assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
The Dimond Brothers of the MHFM have written a book Outside the Church there is no Salvation in which this error is made. They assume that the baptism of desire is known to us and so is an exception to the dogma.
In Light of the World Conversations with Peter Seewald the pope seems to be making the same mistake as Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston.Hence for him Vatican Council II would contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
For me Vatican Council II does not state that there is salvation outside the Church, so the Council does not contradict the Syllabus.With the literal interpretation of the dogma ecclesiology is traditional and exclusive. Hence the teaching on religious liberty would also be traditional. With this perspective one needs to re-read Gaudium et Specs.
Before the SSPX Chapter communique last month this would also be the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) perspective on this issue. However their communique is saying outside the church there is no salvation and no possibility to find the means of salvation. So they do not acknowledge invincible ignorance etc as exceptions to the dogma. Hence there would be no exceptions in Vatican Council II also, to the dogma. Hence we are back to the traditional ecclesiology and understanding of religious liberty. The Council does not contradict the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.-Lionel Andrades
___________________________________________
“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. [...] Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)
P. 16- SALZA WRONGLY SAYS THE CONCILIAR ANTIPOPES HAVE NEVER SAID THEY KNOW THEY ARE DEPARTING FROM CATHOLIC TEACHING
John Salza, Second Article, p. 16: “Of course, the conciliar popes have never said they know they are departing from Catholic teaching. Expulsion from the Church must be based on malice, not speculation.”
Salza is wrong again. To give just one example that refutes Salza’s claim, in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Antipope Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (to which Benedict XVI adheres) contradicts the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864). That the two contradict each other is obvious to any honest person who studies the issue.
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: " The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."
Posts
